People v. Lobos CA4/3

Filed 1/22/14 P. v. Lobos CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048481

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09NF3157)

RENE ANTONIO LOBOS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard F. Toohey, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Glen Boire, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant; and Rene Antonio Lobos, in pro. per. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

An information charged Rene Antonio Lobos, Steven Salvador Hernandez and Jose Francisco Nuno with murder (Pen. Code §187, subd. (a); count 1; all further statutory references are to this code), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 2).1 It further alleged the murder was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). At the time of these alleged crimes Lobos was 15 years old. On April 4, 2012, the information was amended, Lobos pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a); count 3) for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and counts 1 and 2 were dismissed, all pursuant to a disposition negotiated with the prosecutor. The trial court sentenced Lobos to the agreed term of 16 years, consisting of the 6-year midterm on count 3, plus the 10-year criminal street gang enhancement, with total credits of 1,440 days. Lobos filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause pursuant to section 1237.5. However, his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied and Lobos did not seek review of that denial. After Lobos appealed, we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts and the disposition of the case. He did not argue against Lobos, but advised he had not found any issues to argue on Lobos’ behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) He suggested an issue to assist us in our independent review of the record, as set out below. Lobos then filed a supplemental brief which raises additional issues also set out below. We have examined the entire record to determine if any arguable issues are present and we have found none. (Id. at pp. 441- 442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.)